Iraqi PM declares "State of Emergency" as ISIS occupy Mosul

[Mkuki]

Can someone explain to me why John McCain thinks that going back into Iraq won't make the situation worse?

Why would it make the situation worse? McCain record on foreign policy is pretty good to say the least.

How so?

As for the former question, I doubt military intervention will suddenly solve a centuries old issue. If anything it'll make the situation worse by once again pissing off the entire Middle East.

Can someone explain to me why John McCain thinks that going back into Iraq won't make the situation worse?

Because he believes the US can restore order?

Even though US intervention has hastened this debacle?

[Murbleflip]

Why would it make the situation worse? McCain record on foreign policy is pretty good to say the least.

How so?

Because he believes the US can restore order?

Even though US intervention has hastened this debacle?

And why exactly would it not work this time?

[Mkuki]

How so?


Even though US intervention has hastened this debacle?

And why exactly would it not work this time?

There's no reason to think it would work now when it has actually hastened conflict between Sunnis and Shi'as in Iraq. I think it'd be better to see if the Iraqi military can actually defend Iraq. Rash action has rarely benefited anyone. Getting involved in a civil war now won't solve anything. Not for Iraq. Not for Muslims. Not for the Sunni. Not for the Shi'a. Not for the Middle East. And most certainly not for the United States.

Also, why would it work now?

[Stabkon]

And why exactly would it not work this time?

"Ahhhh! My sister is dead!"

"Dead by what?"

"BOMBS! BOMBS FROM THE AMERICAN CRIMINALS! BOMBS KILLED MY SISTER!"

"I tell you! Join us! We would fight those Americans and avenge your sister! Let us make a group that will serve as justice for your sister's death!"

"DEATH TO AMERICA!"


Just a hypothetical situation that emphasizes one of the danger's of further American meddling in the Levant. Even though American intervention has some good things in it there could never be a guarantee that there won't gonna be any consequences.

[Mkuki]

And why exactly would it not work this time?

"Ahhhh! My sister is dead!"

"Dead by what?"

"BOMBS! BOMBS FROM THE AMERICAN CRIMINALS! BOMBS KILLED MY SISTER!"

"I tell you! Join us! We would fight those Americans and avenge your sister! Let us make a group that will serve as justice for your sister's death!"

"DEATH TO AMERICA!"


Just a hypothetical situation that emphasizes one of the danger's of further American meddling in the Levant. Even though American intervention has some good things in it there could never be a guarantee that there won't gonna be any consequences.

That's certainly how al-Qaeda managed to get recruits in the early 2000s and how the Taliban is still able to be a viable force in Afghanistan. Killing people is not the best way to drum up support for the corrupt, exclusive, fledgling democracy that is Iraq.

[Stabkon]

That's certainly how al-Qaeda managed to get recruits in the early 2000s and how the Taliban is still able to be a viable force in Afghanistan. Killing people is not the best way to drum up support for the corrupt, exclusive, fledgling democracy that is Iraq.

It's not surprising how Drone strikes are adding the the population of terrorists than how many are being killed by the drone strikes. All those civilian deaths cause their living vengeful relatives to join Al Qaeda awaiting the opportunity to give revenge to America. Drone strikes are a contribution to rising terrorism, quite ironic.

This is the truth in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Not surprising why many terrorists are Pakistani.

[72o]

And why exactly would it not work this time?

There's no reason to think it would work now when it has actually hastened conflict between Sunnis and Shi'as in Iraq. I think it'd be better to see if the Iraqi military can actually defend Iraq. Rash action has rarely benefited anyone. Getting involved in a civil war now won't solve anything. Not for Iraq. Not for Muslims. Not for the Sunni. Not for the Shi'a. Not for the Middle East. And most certainly not for the United States.

Also, why would it work now?

How has the american invasion hastened conflict between Sunnis and Shias? Saddam's rule was a major factor in depening sectarian divisions, not the US invasion.

[Mkuki]

That's certainly how al-Qaeda managed to get recruits in the early 2000s and how the Taliban is still able to be a viable force in Afghanistan. Killing people is not the best way to drum up support for the corrupt, exclusive, fledgling democracy that is Iraq.

It's not surprising how Drone strikes are adding the the population of terrorists than how many are being killed by the drone strikes. All those civilian deaths cause their living vengeful relatives to join Al Qaeda awaiting the opportunity to give revenge to America. Drone strikes are a contribution to rising terrorism, quite ironic.

This is the truth in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Not surprising why many terrorists are Pakistani.

Malala Yousafzai indicated as much and she's got more "on the ground" experience than John McCain or Barack Obama.

Politicians often tout the destruction of high ranking terrorists and the destruction of major terrorist groups. Does any of that matter when other groups like ISIL or Boko Haram or Al Shabab take their place? Just because you destroy the senior leadership doesn't mean that the terrorists and the reasons for being a terrorist will suddenly melt. People have made the point that wars on nouns are fundamentally unwinnable. They're right. How do you win a war on terrorists? How does killing Farid's baby sister solve anything? The answers are you can't using military force and it doesn't.

[Vistulange]

This is a result of us pulling out of Iraq too fast and not intervening in Syria in 2011, now all the achievements in Iraq are at risk. Swift intervention is what we need.

You got a bunch of your own guys killed for a fight that wasn't yours, you murdered a bunch of Iraqis and you still say you should have been there? Get the fuck out of the Middle-East, Yankee.

[Risottia]

The UN, EU, and NATO have all declared no intention to get involved.
I am utterly disapointed in these organizations.

Did you actually expect them to get involved AGAIN in Iraq? After the mess the US and NATO created there?
Also, why should the EU intervene in Iraq? That's not our turf. If the Iraqis need help they can call the UN. Or Iran.

I would call Iran. And maybe Turkey and Jordan too.

[Vistulange]

The UN, EU, and NATO have all declared no intention to get involved.
I am utterly disapointed in these organizations.

Did you actually expect them to get involved AGAIN in Iraq? After the mess the US and NATO created there?
Also, why should the EU intervene in Iraq? That's not our turf. If the Iraqis need help they can call the UN. Or Iran.

I would call Iran. And maybe Turkey and Jordan too.

Yeah, no. Let's not give our dear leader Tayyip Erdoğan another excuse to curtail civil and political rights, shall we? We're tired of being the West's puppet in the region at our own political, social and physical expense. Do your own dirty work.

[Al-Faisal]

So now at least 2,000 Iranian troops have entered Iraq to help fight ISIS.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/14/iran-iraq-isis-fight-militants-nouri-maliki

[Mkuki]

There's no reason to think it would work now when it has actually hastened conflict between Sunnis and Shi'as in Iraq. I think it'd be better to see if the Iraqi military can actually defend Iraq. Rash action has rarely benefited anyone. Getting involved in a civil war now won't solve anything. Not for Iraq. Not for Muslims. Not for the Sunni. Not for the Shi'a. Not for the Middle East. And most certainly not for the United States.

Also, why would it work now?

How has the american invasion hastened conflict between Sunnis and Shias? Saddam's rule was a major factor in depening sectarian divisions, not the US invasion.

Saddam's harsh rule was enough to keep a damper on any discontent among Iraq's, at the time, Shi'a minority. Now that the Shi'a are not only in the majority, but also in charge, a lot of Sunnis are pissed. Pissed enough to join ISIL, or at least not help the Iraqi government, and overthrow the Shi'a-led government in Baghdad. The Sunni aren't being adequately represented in Baghdad. Or at least, that's the perception of many Sunni Iraqis.

Am I suggesting that the country wouldn't have exploded into civil war under Saddam? No. What I am saying is that the US overthrow of Saddam basically poured gasoline on a slow burning fire.

Would you mind answering my question now?

[Mkuki]

So now at least 2,000 Iranian troops have entered Iraq to help fight ISIS.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/14/iran-iraq-isis-fight-militants-nouri-maliki

Better to let Iran get bogged down in an Iraqi quagmire than the United States.

[Al-Faisal]

Better to let Iran get bogged down in an Iraqi quagmire than the United States.

Well someone has to clean up the messes the United States creates.

We can't let tens of thousands die and women be enslaved because the United States is irresponsible and corrupt.

[Mkuki]

Better to let Iran get bogged down in an Iraqi quagmire than the United States.

Well someone has to clean up the messes the United States creates.

We can't let tens of thousands die and women be enslaved because the United States is irresponsible and corrupt.

Whatever floats your boat. All Iran is going to do is make the situation worse. The terrorists will look at this situation and say, "See! The Shiites are here to destroy us Sunnis. To arms, comrades!"

What is Iran going to get out of this excursion? Dead soldiers. What else? Dead Iranian men, women and children as terrorists explode car bombs in Tehran, Hormuz, Qom, Tabriz, Shiraz, Kerman, and other cities across the country. They might even get a Kurdish revolt in the northern section of the country out of the deal. Who knows, maybe even Najaf will be attacked. These are Sunni extremists they've decided to fight, after all.

[Gauthier]

There's no reason to think it would work now when it has actually hastened conflict between Sunnis and Shi'as in Iraq. I think it'd be better to see if the Iraqi military can actually defend Iraq. Rash action has rarely benefited anyone. Getting involved in a civil war now won't solve anything. Not for Iraq. Not for Muslims. Not for the Sunni. Not for the Shi'a. Not for the Middle East. And most certainly not for the United States.

Also, why would it work now?

How has the american invasion hastened conflict between Sunnis and Shias? Saddam's rule was a major factor in depening sectarian divisions, not the US invasion.

For all of Saddam's brutality, the sectarian strife was bottled up to near nonexistence in his regime. Once he was deposed, the sectarianism went out into the open to where Shiite and Sunni were clashing and sectarian killings escalated.

[Al-Faisal]

Whatever floats your boat. All Iran is going to do is make the situation worse. The terrorists will look at this situation and say, "See! The Shiites are here to destroy us Sunnis. To arms, comrades!"

What is Iran going to get out of this excursion? Dead soldiers. What else? Dead Iranian men, women and children as terrorists explode car bombs in Tehran, Hormuz, Qom, Tabriz, Shiraz, Kerman, and other cities across the country. They might even get a Kurdish revolt in the northern section of the country out of the deal. Who knows, maybe even Najaf will be attacked. These are Sunni extremists they've decided to fight, after all.

What a cute way to dismiss a life-or-death battle for thousands of civilians. Maybe you're just ignorant of the situation, maybe you're just ignorant of life over there, but the situation "getting worse" is a outcome achieved by ignoring the flame and hoping it does not spread. ISIS is already murdering hundreds of POWs and civilians. It's a humanitarian crisis.

So what will Iran get out of this? Something no one got when the United States staged its illegal war of aggression and murder: justice. Justice for the many already butchered, justice for the women being enslaved (obviously you care nothing about the human rights of women), justice for people there to live under something other than ISIS.

The United States' irresponsible actions created ISIS, and its allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar fund it. If Iran does nothing, Iraq may spiral out of control. Iran is obligated both by human decency and national security to act.

Seriously, your posting while ignorant of the geopolitical realities of the conflict simply wastes your time and makes you look bad. In addition, every death here lies at the feet of the United States. A million dead Iraqis so you could save a nickel on gas. Americans deserve to experience what the average Iraqi is experiencing now, for your complicity in waging illegal wars and supporting terror.

[Schirmerland]

I think the United States should intervene in Iraq again. Whether it be ground troops or air strikes.

[Mkuki]

Whatever floats your boat. All Iran is going to do is make the situation worse. The terrorists will look at this situation and say, "See! The Shiites are here to destroy us Sunnis. To arms, comrades!"

What is Iran going to get out of this excursion? Dead soldiers. What else? Dead Iranian men, women and children as terrorists explode car bombs in Tehran, Hormuz, Qom, Tabriz, Shiraz, Kerman, and other cities across the country. They might even get a Kurdish revolt in the northern section of the country out of the deal. Who knows, maybe even Najaf will be attacked. These are Sunni extremists they've decided to fight, after all.

What a cute way to dismiss a life-or-death battle for thousands of civilians. Maybe you're just ignorant of the situation, maybe you're just ignorant of life over there, but the situation "getting worse" is a outcome achieved by ignoring the flame and hoping it does not spread. ISIS is already murdering hundreds of POWs and civilians. It's a humanitarian crisis.

What makes you think that military action will solve anything? What makes you think that it will make this crisis better? How is igniting a Sunni-Shi'a war going to solve anything? All of those women, men, and children that are being enslaved, tortured, and slaughtered, how are you going to help them by raining death and destruction on Iraqi cities?

So what will Iran get out of this? Something no one got when the United States staged its illegal war of aggression and murder: justice. Justice for the many already butchered, justice for the women being enslaved (obviously you care nothing about the human rights of women), justice for people there to live under something other than ISIS.

Justice? No justice is being achieved. All Iran is doing is killing people. The death of terrorists isn't going to give comfort those who have died. They're dead.

The United States' irresponsible actions created ISIS, and its allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar fund it. If Iran does nothing, Iraq may spiral out of control. Iran is obligated both by human decency and national security to act.

If Iran is doing this out of human decency, as you claim and I sincerely doubt, then they should be prepared to go all in. They can't intervene halfheartedly like the United States did. If the Iranian government thinks that it can solve the problems facing Iraq then it should be prepared to occupy Iraq for decades on end. It should be prepared for the strains that are going to come with such an occupation as well, including, but not limited to, the economic strain, the international strain, the domestic strain, the societal strain, and the military strain.

There is no quick in and out when it comes to religiously-fueled conflicts. Iran intervening, more than anything else, will stiffen the resolve of the ISIL terrorists. It will increase their flow of recruits as they announce to the Sunni world that the Shiites have finally come to destroy Sunni Islam. It will play into their fantasies of being Sunni Islam's ultimate protectors. It will give them martyrdom. It will scare Sunnis in other parts of the Middle East. It'll piss off Saudi Arabia and, you guessed it, lead to further funding and arming of these and similar terrorist groups. It will further destabilize the Middle East. This destabilization will just lead to more death and destruction, more enslavement and more torture.

Let me ask you a question. Where is it that the worst civil wars are taking place? Syria and Iraq. What do those two countries have in common? Well, one thing is that they are friendly with Iran. Another is that they are now being torn apart by civil war. Could it be that Saudi Arabia is interested in further isolating an Iran trying to reconnect with both the Muslim world and the world in general? I think so.

Seriously, your posting while ignorant of the geopolitical realities of the conflict simply wastes your time and makes you look bad. In addition, every death here lies at the feet of the United States. A million dead Iraqis so you could save a nickel on gas. Americans deserve to experience what the average Iraqi is experiencing now, for your complicity in waging illegal wars and supporting terror.

You are wrong. It is precisely my respect for human rights and my desire for peace that I advocate non-intervention. I admire your claim that Iran is intervening for humanitarian reasons. However, I do not think that such an outcome is possible. In my opinion, Iran's intervention will only inflame already strained Sunni-Shi'a relations. It will only end up killing more Iraqis and spread the war into Iran, itself. Something I bet the Saudis would be happy to see.

I'll continue to debate you, but I doubt I'll be able to change your mind.

[Gauthier]

Because we were expecting them to greet us as liberators, duh.

If you invade a country and have any intentions other than to destroy everything, you pretty much already lost the war.

Although, Iraq may turn into another Vietnam, which would be a great thing for the US.

Vietnam was great for the US? lolwut?

[Volnotova]

I think the United States should intervene in Iraq again. Whether it be ground troops or air strikes.

Third time's the charm, èh?

What a cute way to dismiss a life-or-death battle for thousands of civilians. Maybe you're just ignorant of the situation, maybe you're just ignorant of life over there, but the situation "getting worse" is a outcome achieved by ignoring the flame and hoping it does not spread. ISIS is already murdering hundreds of POWs and civilians. It's a humanitarian crisis.

What makes you think that military action will solve anything? What makes you think that it will make this crisis better? How is igniting a Sunni-Shi'a war going to solve anything? All of those women, men, and children that are being enslaved, tortured, and slaughtered, how are you going to help them by raining death and destruction on Iraqi cities?

So what will Iran get out of this? Something no one got when the United States staged its illegal war of aggression and murder: justice. Justice for the many already butchered, justice for the women being enslaved (obviously you care nothing about the human rights of women), justice for people there to live under something other than ISIS.

Justice? No justice is being achieved. All Iran is doing is killing people. The death of terrorists isn't going to give comfort those who have died. They're dead.

The United States' irresponsible actions created ISIS, and its allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar fund it. If Iran does nothing, Iraq may spiral out of control. Iran is obligated both by human decency and national security to act.

If Iran is doing this out of human decency, as you claim and I sincerely doubt, then they should be prepared to go all in. They can't intervene halfheartedly like the United States did. If the Iranian government thinks that it can solve the problems facing Iraq then it should be prepared to occupy Iraq for decades on end. It should be prepared for the strains that are going to come with such an occupation as well, including, but not limited to, the economic strain, the international strain, the domestic strain, the societal strain, and the military strain.

There is no quick in and out when it comes to religiously-fueled conflicts. Iran intervening, more than anything else, will stiffen the resolve of the ISIL terrorists. It will increase their flow of recruits as they announce to the Sunni world that the Shiites have finally come to destroy Sunni Islam. It will play into their fantasies of being Sunni Islam's ultimate protectors. It will give them martyrdom. It will scare Sunnis in other parts of the Middle East. It'll piss off Saudi Arabia and, you guessed it, lead to further funding and arming of these and similar terrorist groups. It will further destabilize the Middle East. This destabilization will just lead to more death and destruction, more enslavement and more torture.

Let me ask you a question. Where is it that the worst civil wars are taking place? Syria and Iraq. What do those two countries have in common? Well, one thing is that they are friendly with Iran. Another is that they are now being torn apart by civil war. Could it be that Saudi Arabia is interested in further isolating an Iran trying to reconnect with both the Muslim world and the world in general? I think so.

Seriously, your posting while ignorant of the geopolitical realities of the conflict simply wastes your time and makes you look bad. In addition, every death here lies at the feet of the United States. A million dead Iraqis so you could save a nickel on gas. Americans deserve to experience what the average Iraqi is experiencing now, for your complicity in waging illegal wars and supporting terror.

You are wrong. It is precisely my respect for human rights and my desire for peace that I advocate non-intervention. I admire your claim that Iran is intervening for humanitarian reasons. However, I do not think that such an outcome is possible. In my opinion, Iran's intervention will only inflame already strained Sunni-Shi'a relations. It will only end up killing more Iraqis and spread the war into Iran, itself. Something I bet the Saudis would be happy to see.

I'll continue to debate you, but I doubt I'll be able to change your mind.

While I disagree with the reasons you bring forth for the intervention (it really is to bolster Iran's international influence, save their ally and not end up getting humiliated for allowing Shia Islam's holiest sites to be annihilated) I do agree with the fact that this will make the situation worse, if only during the short term.

The entire region really is going down the drain.

[Saiwania]

I think order can be temporarily restored to Iraq if ISIL is put down, but I don't think the peace can be ever won if Iraq is kept together, the borders created by the British don't mean anything to the people living there. It is time to split Iraq into 3 different countries which will go to the Kurds, Sunni, and Shia respectively.

[Mkuki]

I think the United States should intervene in Iraq again. Whether it be ground troops or air strikes.

Third time's the charm, èh?

What makes you think that military action will solve anything? What makes you think that it will make this crisis better? How is igniting a Sunni-Shi'a war going to solve anything? All of those women, men, and children that are being enslaved, tortured, and slaughtered, how are you going to help them by raining death and destruction on Iraqi cities?


Justice? No justice is being achieved. All Iran is doing is killing people. The death of terrorists isn't going to give comfort those who have died. They're dead.


If Iran is doing this out of human decency, as you claim and I sincerely doubt, then they should be prepared to go all in. They can't intervene halfheartedly like the United States did. If the Iranian government thinks that it can solve the problems facing Iraq then it should be prepared to occupy Iraq for decades on end. It should be prepared for the strains that are going to come with such an occupation as well, including, but not limited to, the economic strain, the international strain, the domestic strain, the societal strain, and the military strain.

There is no quick in and out when it comes to religiously-fueled conflicts. Iran intervening, more than anything else, will stiffen the resolve of the ISIL terrorists. It will increase their flow of recruits as they announce to the Sunni world that the Shiites have finally come to destroy Sunni Islam. It will play into their fantasies of being Sunni Islam's ultimate protectors. It will give them martyrdom. It will scare Sunnis in other parts of the Middle East. It'll piss off Saudi Arabia and, you guessed it, lead to further funding and arming of these and similar terrorist groups. It will further destabilize the Middle East. This destabilization will just lead to more death and destruction, more enslavement and more torture.

Let me ask you a question. Where is it that the worst civil wars are taking place? Syria and Iraq. What do those two countries have in common? Well, one thing is that they are friendly with Iran. Another is that they are now being torn apart by civil war. Could it be that Saudi Arabia is interested in further isolating an Iran trying to reconnect with both the Muslim world and the world in general? I think so.



You are wrong. It is precisely my respect for human rights and my desire for peace that I advocate non-intervention. I admire your claim that Iran is intervening for humanitarian reasons. However, I do not think that such an outcome is possible. In my opinion, Iran's intervention will only inflame already strained Sunni-Shi'a relations. It will only end up killing more Iraqis and spread the war into Iran, itself. Something I bet the Saudis would be happy to see.

I'll continue to debate you, but I doubt I'll be able to change your mind.

While I disagree with the reasons you bring forth for the intervention (it really is to bolster Iran's international influence, save their ally and not end up getting humiliated for allowing Shia Islam's holiest sites to be annihilated) I do agree with the fact that this will make the situation worse, if only during the short term.

The entire region really is going down the drain.

I don't think they're intervening for humanitarian reasons, either. Most governments aren't naive enough to get bogged down in a civil war just to help out some people they don't know.

I don't know about the region. Just countries that are either friendly with Iran or have Shi'a majority populations.

[Kargintina]

Does this sh*t ever end? I'm tired of these godd*mn middle eastern wars happening 24/7